Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?"

24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Guest4377

Posted - 12/16/2013 : 16:00:02 No player should be expected to fight after delivering a clean bodycheck. In fact, if a player does not want to fight at any time, they should not have to fight.

Brooks Orpik is not a fighter. He hasn't been in a regular season fight for five years, and that was a "fight" with Alex Burrows in the 2008-2009 season. Earlier in his NHL career, he also fought guys like Joffrey Lupul and Eri Cole, hardly heavyweights.

So why should Orpik be expected to fight Shawn Thornton, one of the league's top fighters?

Orpik declined, so for Thornton to attack him was not only cowardly, but it was actually criminal assault. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. If Orpik was hurt as bad (or worse) as Steve Moore was when he was attacked by Todd Bertuzzi, I think criminal charges would have been laid against Thornton.

Interestingly, while Orpik doesn't have a regular season fight in five years, he did fight Bertuzzi in a pre-season game in September 2010. Maybe he felt like he didn't have a choice?

Alex116

Posted - 12/15/2013 : 21:08:25

quote:Originally posted by mandree888 i don;t care if the the guy that got hit isn't injured basing a suspension on the outcome is STUPID!

Couldn't agree more, and have always had this opinion! Here's the thing. Seems most people agree that James Neal got off lightly. I have to assume that most people then must feel this was not accidental at all. IMO, that's a blatant attempt at hitting a guy in the head, even more so than a lot of elbows we see. At least with an elbow (Keith on Sedin comes to mind), the hitter could claim that he was just trying to hit him high, but not THAT high whether it's believable or not. In Neal's case, it's obvious what he was doing and there's no place in the game for that!!! Imagine if Marchand was seriously hurt? Now, nobody would prob care cuz Marchand's an idiot but you have to think the suspension would have been much bigger. IMO, it just shouldn't be that way!!!

Guest9825

Posted - 12/15/2013 : 18:42:03

quote:Originally posted by Guest6744

Orpiks should have been expecting a fight after delivering a huge hit to a player who has just recently come back from a concussion. Now if thorton was going to attack him it should have been right then when Orpiks is expecting it. Not from behind in a scrum over a completely different issue. I still think 15 games is too much, considered to Neals easy 5. A knee to the head is just as bad as 2 or 3 punches to the head, even if it didn't result in an injury. Either thorton or Neal should have gotten a 10 game suspension.

I'll agree with you on one thing. Neal's knee to the head of Marchand should easily been more than 5 games and would have no problems with 10 games.

But the problem I have with Thornton to Orpik isthe fact that he took down Orpik from behind and then pummelled him while he was prone, is the main reason that the 15 games isn't enough. Both actions has no place in the game of hockey.

mandree888

Posted - 12/15/2013 : 12:26:41 in my opinion any infraction should be 1/4 of the season for the first infraction no motter what. i don;t care if the the guy that got hit isn't injured basing a suspension on the outcome is STUPID! Second infraction half a season , third infraction 3/4 a season, if it continues and the player hasn't smartend up he is out for good! goonery needs to be out of the game for good also i agree with guest 9825. you want to get back at a player for throwing a clean hit. give one of there players a good clean hard hit.

Guest6744

Posted - 12/15/2013 : 11:21:00 Orpiks should have been expecting a fight after delivering a huge hit to a player who has just recently come back from a concussion. Now if thorton was going to attack him it should have been right then when Orpiks is expecting it. Not from behind in a scrum over a completely different issue. I still think 15 games is too much, considered to Neals easy 5. A knee to the head is just as bad as 2 or 3 punches to the head, even if it didn't result in an injury. Either thorton or Neal should have gotten a 10 game suspension.

Guest9825

Posted - 12/15/2013 : 10:07:44 Don Cherry should shut his trap hole. If a player makes a clean hit, he does not have to fight for delivering a clean hit. Period. 15 games is too little in my opinion.

You want to get back at a clean hit, then you do the same. Not this stand up and fight or be prepared for a cheap shot.

I wonder what the player's union will do when the suspensions get higher. Will they defend the dirty players being suspended or the clean players who is injured?

andyhack

Posted - 12/14/2013 : 14:56:10 Nuxfan - you may very well be correct about your reality point, but 15 is hardly even a step in a direction towards a world where there are more suitable punishments for this sort of thing. Putting aside what I really think is the minimum that should have been given, in my opinion, a braver choice (even in view of the reality that you mention) would have been about 25 to at least move the bar a bit in the right direction.

As it is, we are left with another "short" susupension. Yes, it's hard to consider this "long". 15 games means Shawn will be back playing in about a month. Mid-January. That is not anything near "long" in my book. At best we can say "relatively long" but the comparison is probably to something which at least happened during the course of playing the game, and thus is not much of a comparison in my view.

Someone in Shanny's position in the future has got to take the suspension thing by the balls a bit. Without being overly affected by hockey culture and precedent, and exercising more courage than was demonstrated here, that person has to take the first step to "CHANGING REALITY"!

Alex116

Posted - 12/14/2013 : 12:39:07 I said 20, though it was more what I thought he should get. 15's not bad, but I still think they need to stiffen suspensions on these sorts of things if they really wanna make people think twice about doing such things.

nuxfan

Posted - 12/14/2013 : 12:36:02 15 games it is, plus the 3 he missed, 18 total. More than I thought, but not by a lot.

While the sentiments expressed by others are valid, the reality is that Shanny is not going to start handing out 40 game suspensions without some lead-up. If this sort of thing happens again, the suspensions will likely get longer.

slozo

Posted - 12/11/2013 : 05:50:15

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

Slozo - I guess your caveat is a big reason why I go back and forth on whether it should be more than 40.

But what if we were were talking about way more dire circumstances for Orpik now? Then of course mostly everyone would be calling for Shawn's neck. Many would want way more than 40 games and perhaps rightfully so. This is the point on the other side of the coin for me.

Should we let the merely lucky inch or two, or perhaps the 1 or 2 degree angle of a sucker punch, or perhaps some other very fortunate lack of something here or there that saved both guys from infinitely more heartbreak, determine the way we delve out penalties? Sometimes I think "absolutely no" is the correct answer to that question. In other words, assume Orpik is paralyzed or dead now, and penalize on that basis.

I know it sounds drastic, and that's why I go back and forth. But suddenly 40 doesn't seem so "long" anymore, does it

I am 100% with you on this as well. I also think that the punishment for a crime should not be SIGNIFICANTLY altered by the result of the crime.

I think that any "major" infraction - like this one - should get a standard # of games suspensions, whether the player injured recovers in a game or two, or whether he's so badly injured he has to retire.

You have me convinced now, btw . . . it really should be more than 40 games. I go back to the Bertuzzi incident - which had similar backstory and mitigating circumstances - and he in the end got 20 games, although it was a very odd one that technically also prevented him from playing in Europe during the lockout, so one could argue it was sort of more than that. And at the time, THAT 20 GAMES was the 4th longest suspension the league had ever given out (true story) . . . and thus, I think this deserves AT LEAST as much now, translated to today's suspension lengths.

Currently, Chris SImon's stomping of Ruutu's leg in 2007 is the 4th longest suspension, at 30 games (if counting the Perezhogin suspension from the AHL, he did a full chop to the face of a player).

I would say that a 45, 50 game suspension might be appropriate.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

just1n

Posted - 12/10/2013 : 16:25:55 Thornton needs to get a huge suspension. Going after players for legal hits is getting ridiculous. And even if it wasn't legal, it was close - it was a hockey play. Thornton was just being a total goon, if he's regularly a good guy or not, that doesn't matter.

andyhack

Posted - 12/10/2013 : 15:31:45 Slozo - I guess your caveat is a big reason why I go back and forth on whether it should be more than 40.

But what if we were were talking about way more dire circumstances for Orpik now? Then of course mostly everyone would be calling for Shawn's neck. Many would want way more than 40 games and perhaps rightfully so. This is the point on the other side of the coin for me.

Should we let the merely lucky inch or two, or perhaps the 1 or 2 degree angle of a sucker punch, or perhaps some other very fortunate lack of something here or there that saved both guys from infinitely more heartbreak, determine the way we delve out penalties? Sometimes I think "absolutely no" is the correct answer to that question. In other words, assume Orpik is paralyzed or dead now, and penalize on that basis.

I know it sounds drastic, and that's why I go back and forth. But suddenly 40 doesn't seem so "long" anymore, does it

Alex116

Posted - 12/10/2013 : 08:59:08 Great post Andyhack.

The only thing i'll add, is that i'd like to see a penalty/suspension for anything cowardly such as this incident or the Bertuzzi one, or maybe even Emery's latest? Something like the "leaving the bench to fight" minimum. It may be a bit more of a judgement call, but if you warn guys today that the league won't tolerate this sort of thing, there's no need to slowly ease in suspensions of greater length! Start it today, ANYONE who is deemed to have "attacked" an unwilling combatant, will be suspended for a min of 25 games! Heck, make it 50!

slozo

Posted - 12/10/2013 : 08:16:45

quote:Originally posted by andyhack

Shawn deserves a huge suspension for a totally despicable act. 10, 20 games is not enough. 40 games minimum.

The message has to be stronger. You do crap like that, you don't play for half a season plus.

Edit - maybe even more - again, as I have said many times here, our view of a "long" suspension is out of whack. Maybe even 40 isn't so "long" for this - I go back and forth on that point

But, I do think that this is the case of a basically good guy who just lost it, partially due to his own character flaws, partially due to the crazy culture of hockey, partially due to a uniquely bizarre period of unfortunate incidents, and maybe most importantly for all the self-righteous commentators out there willing to assassinate the guy's character and career now, partially due to defects in the make-up of many human beings (including me, but not including the rare saint out there) who unfortunately are prone to sometimes doing terrible, awful and,yes absolutely disgusting (even for a huge Bruin fan) things.

Very well said, Andyhack.

My only caveat is, that no matter how effed up our hockey culture is, and no matter how "wrong" the suspension lengths are (something I totally agree with you on) . . . we can't expect sudden, drastic change to a level where it's a standard that may be morally justifiable, but is stratospherically above anything else done in the past.

I would say that a 10 or 12 game ban is sort of an expected amount - a minimum amount, I'd say. A message would be sent with 15 to 20ish games, that would be a strong, elevated message.

But we really can't expect much more than that, I would say. Change has to happen slowly for the most part . . .

The message has to be stronger. You do crap like that, you don't play for half a season plus.

Edit - maybe even more - again, as I have said many times here, our view of a "long" suspension is out of whack. Maybe even 40 isn't so "long" for this - I go back and forth on that point

But, I do think that this is the case of a basically good guy who just lost it, partially due to his own character flaws, partially due to the crazy culture of hockey, partially due to a uniquely bizarre period of unfortunate incidents, and maybe most importantly for all the self-righteous commentators out there willing to assassinate the guy's character and career now, partially due to defects in the make-up of many human beings (including me, but not including the rare saint out there) who unfortunately are prone to sometimes doing terrible, awful and,yes absolutely disgusting (even for a huge Bruin fan) things.

slozo

Posted - 12/09/2013 : 10:42:10 The Neal knee to the head is a brutally dirty play, well deserved suspension, and he's lucky as it could have . . . SHOULD have been more, IMHO. It's not the first offense for Neal.

The Shawn Thornton thing is a bit different . . . it's a complete mugging obviously, and it's gutless and doesn't belong in the game. But the caveat is here, I know what he was going for / thinking . . . you randomly take out one of our guys? Ok, I'll do the same! And I hope the powers that be don't take that caveat as an excuse to give him less of a punishment.

It's a poor choice of vigilante justice, and hopefully he simply gets punished for act itself - which it SHOULD be. This should be at least 8, 10 games you'd think . . . a dozen or more would send a message. Quite frankly, it was a situation that reminds one of the Bertuzzi/Moore mess that happened, complete with incident beforehand (Moore's hit on I believe Naslund was minor compared to Neal's knee on head). The result could have been MUCH, much worse here . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 12/08/2013 : 22:56:01 Looked clean to me as well, though admittedly, I've only seen one view and that's from behind Orpik. I read a comment somewhere that the head was struck? Tough to say from that angle but sure looked like he tried to get him in the chest?

nuxfan

Posted - 12/08/2013 : 17:51:13 It looked clean to me, although one could debate. At most a minor for something (charging?), but one of the cleanest mid-ice hits I've seen. No contact to the head, just a solid shoulder to chest hit. Ericksson was either touching, or had just touched the puck (IMO). Had he not touched the puck then certainly charging or interference would have applied.

Guest2186

Posted - 12/08/2013 : 13:36:28 Also what did you guys think of the Orpik hit on Eriksson? I thought it was clean myself. Shoulder to the chest and avoided the head. Not sure if he actually touched the puck or not but it was right there with him.

Guest2186

Posted - 12/08/2013 : 13:33:28 It's Marchand... he is good at what he does being an agitator. That being said Neal should still get suspended, totally targeting of the head. Not sure of his suspension history but expect him to be out for a few games regardless.

fanoleaf

Posted - 12/08/2013 : 06:04:17 Thornton most definitely will have the book thrown at him as he should. Very cowardly, the slew foot is one thing. The part that bothers me the most is the punches to the side of the head with his gloves on while he is lying on the ice unable to even protect himself.

The sequence of events is interesting as outlined when I watched Bob Mackenzies clip on TSN and he references the hit that Orpik put on Erickson, Thornton then challenges him and Orpik refused to fight. The game continues and Crosby trips Marchand and Neal questionably lays a knee to his head. Then Thornton does this to Orpik,

WIth regards to the Neal hit, makes you wonder about what goes through these players minds. Especially a team that has had the best player of this generation sidelined due to a head shot.

Alex116

Posted - 12/07/2013 : 23:45:30 nuxfan, couldn't agree with the Neal comment more. As much as i'd love to do the same to Marchand, it was cheap! I think he'll get 3-5 games.

The Thornton one sounded a lot worse than it looked when I first heard about it. After hearing about it originally, I then heard Cherry discuss it on Coach's Corner. Don't get me wrong, this was bad. However, to me, it sounded like it was Bertuzzi all over again. Sure, to some extent, there were similarities, but to be quite honest, I was surprise to hear Orpik left the game and ended up hospitalized. As wrong as it was, it just didn't seem like there could have been that much damage done. Even still, unlike nuxfan, I think they will "throw the book" at Thornton. I'm guessing 20+ games, but it's just a hunch.

nuxfan

Posted - 12/07/2013 : 20:47:33 There will be no legal trouble.

Thornton will most definitely be suspended though. I was surprised to read that he has never been suspended before, go figure... I'm guessing 6-10 games, would be surprised if it went higher than that.

Neal should get a couple. As much as I hate Marchand, that was a pretty cheap knee.

Lunchbox

Posted - 12/07/2013 : 18:42:55 Hard to see exactly how bad it is from the video, but I hear Orpik is gonna be okay and was recovering. Thornton being Thornton, they're probably gonna throw the book at him, and maybe lucky for James Neal, who gets something to distract from a pretty bad "accidentally on purpose" knee to the head he delivered on the same play.